Do opponents of Public Health Care also oppose Public Education?

I don't know. Is they?

Apparently, you don't know what affirmative action is. Who those private Ivy League schools choose to admit is up to them. They are private institutions. Affirmative action doesn't apply to them. In fact, the Ivy League schools should be admitting a lot more Asian Americans (not whites) than they are if it were solely based on merit or minority status. But I guess Asians aren't an "underrepresented minority".

I oppose public health care in all forms. Personally I think we need intelligent reform and not 1100 plus pages of gibberish. Open up competition between the states so all the private insurance companies can compete with each other and bring costs down.

I don't support public schools but they can work within reason because they are tiny compared to health care and the government has had hundreds of years to get it right (well sort of). There is no contradiction here. Allow me to explain that health care is not a right afforded us in the constitution but I'm pretty sure access to public education is in there somewhere. The private sector can do it better than public schools and that is evident so long as you maintain a system that gets rid of any school not making a profit and reward those churning out kids whose test scores are at/above par.

Here is the problem with what the President proposes.

The public option causes a government subsidized plan for anyone who wants it. Notice the subsidy is from taxes paid by everyone. Therefore in order to keep costs from going out of control the government plan would have to cut benefits or doctors could refuse services because they would be getting paid less. Or doctors could start charging more to anyone with private sector insurance. The progressive result of this would be people flocking to the government program since their taxes would be paying for it to begin with they figure "why not its my right?"

So why would it be bad to have everyone/almost everyone in a government health program? Costs... Bankruptcy right now we are in financial trouble because of overspending. High inflation is a very real possibility in the next few years. (Inflation is the devaluation of currency just FYI.)

Perhaps I should clarify the "Costs" I'm talking about. Look at any country that provides "Free" "Public" health care and you will find out they can't sustain their spending without serious problems with coverage.

For example It takes 5 months for a hernia operation in Canada. Can you imagine that in America!? There was a woman who had migraines, blurred vision and dizziness. She went to her doctor in Canada but decided not to wait a month or more for an MRI. She came to the States and paid for one. She had a tumor and was told she needed immediate surgery. Guess what? Her doctor in Canada said she would be put on a waiting list for 1 year!!! She borrowed money to have it done in the States. Please don't head down the path to this.

Yes, I know we pay more per person than anywhere else in the world mainly because of fat people and those who don't take care of themselves with preventative care.

One other issue is that once this government program is in place it will get a bailout every time no matter how bad of a job they do. Meaning it will continue to suck down money and resources like some unstoppable political force. This is happening in the UK. Don't believe me? Lookup news on how their finances have been and the political red tape associated with it. Its unsastainable in its current form. "Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money."

-Wish I could remember who said that.

For anyone who believes that our "Wonderful all knowing government" can pull off national health care I invite you to research Native American reservations. They have a saying there "Don't get sick after July" because they are out of money by then. Yes the US government by treaty is responsible for their medical care and quiet frankly they do a piss poor job.

If you live in the United States you are entitled to what is in the Constitution Not a darn thing more.

If you want health insurance BUY IT and do it before you buy a car. Take the bus and get health insurance.

Well I'm done ranting.

Branderson391 wrote:

If you live in the United States you are entitled to what is in the Constitution Not a darn thing more.

Two problems with your statement:

(1) The 9th Amendment: "The Enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People."

(2) The list of implied rights is legion: travel, privacy, education, the right to marry, the right to procreate. Implied rights are simply rights that can reasonably inferred from the explicit rights of the Constitution.

Also, one could argue, that the Constitution doesn't provide any rights: it exists to secure those rights from government intrusion.

lady gaga has peepee wrote:

No issues yet you still choose the private route? Of course you have issues and think public systems are less quality or else you wouldn't choose the private route.

You didn't read my statement closely. I said I didn't see any issue with the existence of certain public services that secure the basic rights of the citizenry: travel, education and, arguably, health.

That doesn't mean that I don't have personal issues with them (however my issues with education are more substantive than about quality).

OP is an idiot wrote:

What is wrong with taking advantage of something you are paying for?

If the government is going to make me pay for public education, I'm going to uses it. But I don't have to like it. Nor do I need to fool myself into thinking public education is the most efficient and effective way to educate.

I thought we were talking about whether public education--as an institution--was somehow different than a system that would provide public health care as a basis of being a citizen of the US. I don't think that they are. I will likely never use either but--to be honest--that is beside the point.

Nor--to be frank--is the point whether the gov't would administer health care "efficiently and effectively." I have no illusions that most of the public health care in this country will be lousy. That doesn't mean that the government doesn't have a responsibility to insure the basic health of its citizens.

In order for people to enjoy the explicit rights secured by our constitution, they must--in some instances--be provided governmental services to enjoy the implicit rights: travel or education. (Thus we provide public transporation and public education).

My question back to you: how is the right to be healthy not an implicit right?

lady gaga has peepee wrote:

Public Schools = kids

Public Health Care = Adults, Seniors, Kids, and everyone in between. Thats alot of money.

Yes, and public schools = State funded with some fed controls...but state funded nonetheless.

Public health care = Federally funded which is a violation and abuse of federal power. This should be a States rights issue with Federal controls. Then it would be according to our Constitutional authority and we would be comparing apples to apples.

However, the OP is comparing two different things (apples and oranges) so technically there is not a contradiction...just alot of confusion.

you need to understand that in the grand scheme of things....

EDUCATION, public or otherwise is about securing the future of the nation by having an educated and productive population going forward.

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE is about the past, the old and those of us that have not been that lucky in the genetic lottery.

Education is an imperative for survival as a nation whereas universal health care is not.

All I want. wrote:

Hey we are from Italy, came here in 1934. We had nothing to do with slavery.

But you weren't hurt by it either, were you?

And in fact, you have benefited from it as immigrants to a country built on the slavery of others.

Think, buddy.

here by inteligent design wrote:

All those Medicare recipients are rightly upset.....they faithfully paid all their working lives into the system and now Obama proposes to divert monies from Medicare to help pay the bill for the health care of the indigent and illegals.

wow, what a "big talker" you are.

I know someone losing his healthcare insurance because of the slide in the housing industry, he and his wife have worked all their lives. He works close to 60 hours a week.

Another situation, college degree, both man and wife, sent two kids to college, now the best insurance coverage they can get and afford has a $8,000 deductible. one broken ankle ate that up.

those losing their insurance aren't indigent and illegals dude, they are hard working men and women.

what you don't know about health care is a lot.

All I want. wrote:

Is my two high schoolers who have busted their butts for their 2200 in the SAT and 4.0 to have a fair shot at their dream schools. I think if Obama goes on all our schools live he should mention he is dumping affirmative action. We got two minority kids who have been contacted by the top IVY league in the USA. Both of these kids we love to death but both are laughing so hard that this top university is gonna pay for them to come see the school and pay for their entire education there. So Obama don't tell my kids to work real hard in school so you can shit on them with your affirmative action. Hey we are from Italy, came here in 1934. We had nothing to do with slavery.

maybe dude, you should sit in on the "stay in school talk" on Tuesday.

First of all the "Ivy League Schools" can do whatever they damn well feel like, they are private aren't they?

Second, a President doesn't just bag law. It would be a supreme court decision or some bill passed in congress.

Obama had nothing to do with affirmative action legislation, he was four years old when it was developed and enforced.

Dude - please, stay in school ! Just how did those kids of yours get so smart - mother?

socalrunnerxc wrote:

Public education doesn't threaten private schools.

Except by siphoning off tax dollars that families could use to *pay* for private schools.

Except by mandating certain courses of study, in certain subject areas.

Except by requiring schooling until a certain age.

Et cetera.

teaching wrote:

All I want. wrote:

Hey we are from Italy, came here in 1934. We had nothing to do with slavery.

But you weren't hurt by it either, were you?

And in fact, you have benefited from it as immigrants to a country built on the slavery of others.

Think, buddy.

I believe YOU have more thinking to do! This country was built much more on the industrial revolution in the north than the slavery in the South. This is a nation that, today, is free for all. We, as a nation, some kicking and screaming, turned away from slave holdings and corrected the wrong. Stop beating the dead horse as though slavery just ended. The whites of today are not the guilty of 140+ years ago. YOU need to think. If you are so desparate to point to the past for present ills, then why don't you spend some time comparing the manipulative practices of the current administration to the Nazi era politics and get energized against where these current power grabs could lead us.

the charter school system gets worse results than public schools with comparable socioeconomic numbers. the former also reduces the incentive to be a teacher by breaking unions. Yet Arne Duncan thinks that's the right model and he's somehow convinced Obama to follow it. I very much hope that Obama sticks with the public option, because without it we will get decades more of worsening health care costs. This is the time for some political courage. Once we have it, it will be massively popular within a short time and few will ever understand how a public OPTION (that is, anyone can keep his or her private insurance) could ever have been controversial.

duck in the chicken wrote:

do you really mean this wrote:

Do you want health care to resemble

http://richgibson.com/DPScrisis.htm

?

I'm not sure how the problem started in Detroit, but a pattern I've seen in Oregon is that Republicans are constantly trying to cut taxes, and then to balance the budget they cut funding for public schools. Despite that, it is possible to get a pretty good education in a public school there. Most of the kids who fail, fail because they don't care about school. You see the pattern yet? When public schools fail, it's because the public doesn't care enough about education. It's impossible to provide a good education to every child when voters and politicians keep cutting revenue and many children simply don't want to learn.

I think that you've nailed it. Detroit is a REpublican stronghold and ha been for years. Ever since they got in bed with the unions you can't get a Democrat elected no matter how much damage is currently being done.